About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
in bush v. gore. now, justice scalia does a lot of public speaking, and he's often asked a kind of hostile questions about bush v. gore. why did you do bush v. gore? and he always says the same thing. oh, get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just myself, i am so not over it. [applause] >> four i wrote "the nine" i wrote, i wrote a book called too close to call about the recount in florida. it had a big part in bush v. gore, and one thing i try to do in reporting that book was interview al gore. obviously, you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i tried everything. he didn't want to relive the expense. just by coincidence i met al gore while i was working on "the nine" and i said to him, he had read "too close to close." we're talking about that. i said, i'm writing another book where bush v. gore is at the center of it. i said i think i'm the biggest bush v. gore junkie in the world. and he said you may be second. [laughter] you know, i think you got a point. i have to agree. but i don't want to spend too much time on bush v. gore today but the bush v. gore had a not predi
with george h. w. bush and his wife, barbara in part because they were all close contemporaries. philip and the 41st president had also both seen action in the pacific in world war ii, which give them a common bond. the queen is rather formal, bush told me, but i never found per reserved, standoffish. it is hard to explain really, but she is a very, very easy to be with. conversation comes easily. that ease was evident after the white house welcoming ceremony for her third state visit in 1991 when presidential aides for got to provide a set for the podium that have been designed for the considerably taller president's. while making her remarks, the cluster of microphones obscured the queen's face, offering tv viewers what appears to be a talking purple and white striped had. the queen laughed after words. another moment slightly gone wrong. her humor made it all seemed fine, george bush said. he also marveled at her stamina at age 65. at the state dinner he observed that her fast pace had left even the secret service panting. one of the queen's secret service once said she has too great
to bush and gore. he always says the same thing. he says oh, get over it. >> speaking just for myself, i am so not over it. [laughter] i met al gore while i was working on the night and i said to him, i said to him, -- and he had read too close to call, and i had said, i am writing another book where bush and gore at the center of it. and i said, i think i am the biggest bush and gore junkie in the world, and he said you might be summoned. [laughter] you know, i think he has a point. i have to agree. but anyway, i don't want to spend too much time on bush and gore today, but that he had a not predictable, at least for me, i'm not very good at predictions from, as you may know, we will be getting to that a little bit later, the legacy of the supreme court. as you know, i think you all know, bush won that. but the court from 2000 until 2005, they moved to the left. the court are more liberal. the same non-justices. -- the same nine justice. the end of the death penalty, they decided that gay people can no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex. also the famous case from the u
that was been wrongly at the seat of george bush in the republican party when it goes back to democratic house important -- but nevertheless i wrote in that book that romney would make a great presidential nominee. i didn't know who the nominee would be. it's not a book about romney. i was proven remarkably impressionable by the 2007 book. the dean of the columbia school of journalism. the new yorkers national political reporter and always the go to guy for national political stories. the profile the in 2005 for the new yorker. it was a very nice piece. he told his liberal democratic leaders, the most influential conservative you ever heard of. okay. [laughter] that's okay, i guess. i don't really speak to the manhattan crowd, the your crowd. how many of you describe to the new yorker? i rest my case. he had read that and remembered that i've written this book about romney. what do you think now? have read the book. no, i haven't. go back and read in and coming back. he did. he called me back in about a week. what do you think of the book? we talked about it. in fact, i made predictions about
president, president johnson, nixon, ford, reagan and george h. w. bush not for a single day had even a single house of congress from their own political party. ronald reagan did have the senate for four years but he never had a full congress that was republican. bill clinton did have a full congress that was republican but bill clinton was democrat. and you have fragmented government, george w. bush had a republican congress for four to eight years. george bush scarcely had the best domestic legislative accomplishment that could rival lyndon johnson or to be fair richard nixon. perhaps the 2012 elections will generate a unified government that will pass its preferred programs but it would be foolhardy, most observers at this time is the more or less maintenance of the status quo in which barack obama will continue to occupy the oval office as the republicans continue to patrol by reversed number of the house of representatives with the senate at this time being up for grabs. so we should be open for the possibility that the current election will fit the shakespearean description of s
, justice sotomayor and justice kagan and george w. bush's white house counsel, those three don't have any children. they have devoted themselves time to their careers. that's wonderful for those who want to do it. secretary chao doesn't have children. doctor jerry condoleezza rice doesn't have children. women who want to have a more sensible lifestyle choice, those who want to develop less time to their work and to their family, that is a goal, too. it should not be to make 100% of what men make. it should be to have a satisfying career. there is such a great variety of jobs available. flexible jobs, full-time jobs, they can work 60 or 80 hours a week and make an investment on wall street. women have all these choices. the ones who choose more sensible jobs with lower incomes should not be put down. they should not be made to feel as if they are making a valid choice. >> host: we are speaking with diana furchtgott-roth, author of "how obama's gender policies undermine america" and "women's figures: an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america." you have another book c
? what is he curious about? what does he follow up on? i don't know president bush very well. he seems to have a number of wonderful qualities but being curious was not one of them so being able to show this president as being intellectually adventurous and curious is a very important thing and also to show the breadth of his presence. being president is not just making it big speech and slapping some on the back. is being able to walk into a room where there is a family grieving over the death of a loved one and then meeting the teacher of the year and saying hi at a professional picnic. everything is different and transitioning with these kinds of emotional intelligence that it takes from an moment like that to another moment from absolute tragedy to absolute triumph is really i think what makes presidents good presidents and that is something, not just obama but i can see it in lots of people and for instance we were talking about george w. bush who was not my favorite president for sure but when i look at through this context and think about the things i thought about his presidenc
in response to the president bush "state of the union." it was not well done. jon stewart had a great time. from the communication perspective she is not that inspirational. and that is a lot of what was written she will not bring a lot. she did not have foreign policy experience. she said that made the difference with joe biden was born policy and she agreed it was essential. but now she is a cabinet secretary and knows where that will take her? >> the third is senator made the castle on. >> and was four several reasons. the first woman elected to the senate in her own right. there was an article of the women in congress over his dead body. there are still quite a few but margaret chase smith she followed her husband and took it over. she was the first who did not follow a spouse it was a high leave visible race even the london newspaper commented the day after the election. one woman in the senate. she got a lot of attention that two years later she was in a temporary chair at the national convention people talk to your as a national force. she had a lot going for her and if you remember
by mr. bush advisers that he was just in the housing market subprime mortgage would all work out. they regularly told us the federal reserve has just such on the quantitative easing program number three. the reason they pump money for the third time is because the first two didn't work you did recently had to to have multiple stimuli was because they didn't work. so it is a very unstable system. it is not clear what that is about, except that it's very deep, built-in and the reason we know that if every effort to stop it, to prevent it to reflect us has failed. and if you ever wanted -- not that it's the only one, but if you ever wanted one way into the conversation that would question a system pacific displays that kind of instability because you cannot exaggerate the cost. every index of misery goes up with unemployment. that's up album, physical health problems, drug addition, i'll call us on her break up of family, alienation is parents and children. you name it, it gets worse with economic downturns. therefore cost is spread into the future. the parents of children unemploye
a primary. they're trying to distract them in the short term and for the bush campaign was revolutionary and you see these tactics applying them and the obama campaign 2012 modeling and other techniques is taking place and part of that is that you can set out a research agenda. in chicago there was a post mortem committee set up in november of 2008 for people who were doing d√Čtente targeting. almost four years now they went through they did right and wrong and what they want to fix in the future, and it's really unusual but the campaign and
of a former press secretary of president george w. bush? did you ever interview that offer? the father of scott mcclellan? >> i didn't interview him. all i can say about lyndon johnson's role in the assassination is in all my years of working on lyndon johnson's papers and going through his diaries and everything and all the people close to him i never found the slightest hint that he had everything to do with the assassination. >> mr. caro, lbj is well remembered as someone who was very adept at navigating the senate and working with congress as president to get some difficult things done. how well do you think he would do as president today getting things done with the very polarized environment? [applause] >> terrific question. it is hard to answer. part of the answer is the following. lyndon johnson became majority leader of the senate in 1955, the senate was and had been for decades -- let's put it that way -- taught to believe the same dysfunctional mess that it is today. bills couldn't get past because the power that confronted a president wasn't a party to this. wasn't republic
this is not the real picture of the process. years before -- we didn't take seriously what president bush was saying in 2003 when he was saying we want democracy in the middle east. he said that when he was talking about iraq but he meant it and we didn't really listen to. reducing his statements or the perception we have of him, for getting he is representing a system. he is representing an administration. this administration pushing for many reasons and not only political reasons anything which has to do today with the democratization in the region. the bloggers and cyberdissidents who were pushing and spreading around of feeling that something should change in egypt and tunisia and even syria or yemen many of these blockers -- this was known. google, freedom house, they were training people and financing the training of people who were advocating democracy and liberating the countries and they were trained by american organizations and european organizations and if we study what happened in eastern europe with the whole process of the european spring, eastern european spring because behind it was
, that is my best friend, dan bush, who died in that helicopter crash. if you look at that invented hollywood, that's real people are there. keep in mind the type of man i had become. i had become so cocky and arrogant that i didn't even associate outside those circles. abusive childhood, never had anything good to hold onto, so finally, i get a team that i consider my family and i make that the center of my world. if that is going to be the center of my world, i'm going to be the best at it that i can be. so that i can go on field team six and then be a sniper, i am the cream of the crop as far as that goes. and i watch people get injured around me. i watched people get shot on either side of me. i never got a scratch. i did it skydive and i never got a scratch. none of that happened me. well, god decided on october 3, 1993, that i was protected by god only as long as he allowed me to be. the first time i got shot was at the hotel -- the olympic hotel when we were taking the prisoners out. i got shot in the left knee. does anyone here know what i thought when the first bullet hit me? >> give
george w. bush. and the headline of that top secret briefing was, and we ran it in "the washington post" after it became a big issue, was bin laden determined to strike in u.s. now, think about that. you're the president of the united states, you get a top secret report saying bin laden determined to strike in the u.s. you should do something. well, we know not enough was done can. we know that the government across the board failed to do what was necessary on potential terrorism, and we had 9/11. i tell you the theme song, the big music in this book i've written that i've tried to present is u.s. economy about to falter. and it's a warning. and it's disappointing, to be honest with you, it's agonizing that it can't get into the dialogue because we have a presidential election six weeks ago -- six weeks from now in which whoever, whether's obama, romney, they're going to have to sit there, and this is what they're going to be spending your time on. yes, young man. >> hi. um, i just -- oh, 13. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to say, first of all, that i am right in the middle of the price
the bush administration beforehand had begun that ratcheting up of cooperation between with the israel defense forces after 9/11. that cooperation is a two-way street. the israelis have designed equipment that has saved the lives of americans in afghanistan. and, indeed, self sealing bandages, it's one of the reasons it saves lives of people who have been hit, improved wound healing. so it's a two-way thing. they're constantly talking, swapping tactics, things about drones. so a lot of good things there. but what the right hand giveth with defense, the left-handed diplomatic takes away with pressure to free settlement, something the palestinians have never asked for, israel was told it should negotiate from, what were called by the administration 1967 borders, which were the 1939 cease-fire lines, which are not borders. and the palestinians immediately adopted that. so then there was a series of breach in the spring about a possible is restructuring up in "the new york times." and some of them were traced to officials in the administration. and there were things about an israeli strike
and 1990 and president bush nominated him as associate justice of the supreme court and he took his seat on october 203rd 1991. please welcome justice thomas and professor mark to the stage. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and tennant love for that extra nearly gracious, warm welcome. thank you for the national archives and the staff for making this event possible. thanks also, special thanks to the federalist society and the constitutional accountability center and thank you, justice thomas and off for being with us today as we mark the 225th birthday of our constitution. i guess i would like to start that conversation with the words the constitution starts with. we, the people. what that phrase means to you, how that freeze has changed over time thanks to the amendments and other developments. who is this we? when did folks like you when i become part of this? >> well, obviously not perfect. that's an understatement. but you grow up in an environment, at least i was fortunate enough where we believed that it is perfectible. in a, it's very -- i think pretty much it's a acceptable or ma
it was. but not anymore. when george w. bush was president and the president was issuing presidential signing statements, which i thought he was saying he did not have to obey the law, but what happened was, there was a legitimate, strong argument being made by the president's supporters in favor of why the president had the use statements to distance himself from legislation. there were also very strong arguments by people like me who says that that is unconstitutional. the american bar association appointed a task force to look into these findings and i was a member of that task force, and then the president of the aba and i testified before a house committee and, guess what? even though a good face was being made for the president to issue and sign the statements, not one single democrat, not one saw any merit in his argument. even though i thought and a lot of other people thought that what the president was doing was clearly unconstitutional, the president saying i don't have to obey the law that i just time, not one republican done anything wrong with it. on issue after issue, f
the taliban was overthrown in 2001, the bush was administratig wanted to build a morecy democratic government in afghanistan. has that is -- the government thatcp has been created as a democratic system. it is, however, filled with an, lot of backroom dealing, a lot of warlords have been brought it in, it is certainly better thane what the afghans have had in thi past.or but the incompetence of the government, the corruptiont really does redouble our efforts to try to provide meaningfulthes reconstruction and development in the country. it has been a huge impediment to the strategy over there. unfortunately, the real victims in this are the afghan peoplewh who find themselves victimizedbb by the government instead of helped by their government. people who live there find themselves shaken down,the peopt expecting that they will getr impartial and speedy justice anr the government just does not work for the people there,ndrasa unfortunately.lo. >> host: kelly in cottage grove, oregon. please go ahead with yourue ve bee comments. your comments were rajiv i chandasekaran.as >> caller: i just wan
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)